Nuclear Power Leaves a Toxic Legacy
So why is the Harper government investing billions in it?
Dr. Jim Harding is an
anti-uranium mining
activist, author of
Canada’s Deadly Secret:
Saskatchewan Uranium
and the Global Nuclear
System and a founding
member of the Regina
Group for a Non-
Nuclear Society.. We spoke recently with
Dr. Harding. The following is an edited
version of that interview.
What is happening with nuclear
power in Canada in recent years?
The industry is talking of a renaissance
here as it is in other countries, but
the truth is even if it does expand in
Ontario, which is the only jurisdiction
committed to new reactors, the older
CANDUs are going to be hitting that
aging point within the next decade. So
what they call a renaissance could in
reality be a phase-out. But the industry,
which is still heavily subsidized by the
federal government, is looking for chinks
in energy policies, particularly in Alberta
and Saskatchewan, and somewhat in
New Brunswick.
Should nuclear be a part of Canada’s
energy future?
It’s going to be, because we’re locked
into the nuclear waste system. I don’t say
that happily, but I say that as a realist.
One of the reasons I so strongly support
no expansion and phasing out as quickly
as possible is because you can reduce
the spent fuel, which is going to be not
only an economic cost, but is going to
be a burden to future generations. They
won’t get any electricity, but they will
have to manage these wastes. Canada’s
well up in terms of the top five countries
accumulating nuclear waste, so (nuclear)
is going to be in our future. In terms of
being a source to generate electricity, the
Nuclear Power Leav es a Toxic Legacy
So why is the Harper government investing billions in it?
economics make no sense. The second
generation of reactors they are trying to
sell to the public don’t actually exist –
they’re prototypes, and where they are
trying them in other countries, they are
having all the problems they had with
the first generation, so it makes little
sense economically. And the other sources
of generating electricity are coming on so
quickly. Renewables will double the electricity
from nuclear over the next
15 years with a status quo policy. If we
were actually to embrace sustainable
and renewable energy that trend could
accelerate.
Is nuclear really a green form
of energy?
Well, of course this is the big promotional
approach the industry is using.
This industry is rooted totally in nuclear
weapons and the CANDU is based on
a prototype that was actually created
to produce plutonium for weapons.
Nuclear, when it is fully costed, is at
minimum three times the cost of other
sources of electricity per kilowatt-hour.
“Green” is just the latest of the myths
that this industry uses. I’ve read their
literature and I know the designs of the
new reactors were not done with the
idea of reducing their carbon footprint.
The promotional people in the industry
decided this was a good gimmick to try
to get into the public – that (the nuclear
industry) is part of the climate change
solution. If you do a full cycle analysis
with nuclear from uranium mining
right through to refining to enriching to
spent fuel management you actually get
a carbon footprint that approaches coal
generation. Nuclear is not a green energy
when there is full cycle analysis done.
It’s a fallacy.
Is there anything else you think
Canadians should know?
The other thing I would add is
the nuclear industry was the first to
get onside with the FTA, which led to
NAFTA. And the reason they wanted
to was because there was going to be a
big push in the U.S. for uranium and
it occurred under the Reagan administration.
It was not for nuclear power
plants – that boom didn’t occur. The
U.S. was shutting its uranium industry
down because it was uneconomical and
the liabilities of leaching uranium tailings
in the watersheds were high, and
mining workers’ cancers were beginning
to increase. (The U.S.) wanted to have
a secure uranium supply system without
having to deal with the burdens of the
environment or watershed protection,
and (Canada) became that. It was written
into the FTA under the energy security
sectors. They gave Canada the “privilege”
of having our uranium enriched
through the U.S. enriching system while
agreeing to provide security of supply
and a guarantee of the market into the
U.S. We were locked into those agreements.
We would actually have to break
NAFTA if we wanted to phase out this
unecological and unsustainable industry.
Jan Malek is the Publications Officer for the
Council of Canadians.
Printer-friendly version: Nuclear Power Leaves a Toxic Legacy in PDF Format (83kB)
Photo: Anti-uranium mining activist Dr. Jim Harding
(left) joins Council of Canadians’ Prairie
Regional Organizer Sheila Muxlow (right) in
pointing out the proposed location for a new
nuclear reactor next to Lac Cardinal near
Peace River in Alberta.
